JUDGMENT Amitav K. Gupta, J : The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2007, passed in W.P.(S) No.6068 of 2002, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application of the respondent – petitioner. 2. The respondent – petitioner filed the aforesaid writ stating that he was appointed on the post of Development Officer on 24.09.1979 in the pay scale of Rs.1060-1582/-as per Advertisement of RIADA published in the year 1979. That the post of the Development Officer was always treated as equivalent to the post of Deputy Director, in the Industries Department and the recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee's report, the pay scale approved for the post of Deputy Director was given to the Development Officer and as per the 4th Pay Revision Committee recommendation, the pay scale of Deputy Director pay was revised in the scale of Rs.3000 – 4500 which led to resentment by the Deputy Director or equivalent post and the matter was referred to Anomaly Removal Committee whereafter the pay scale of Deputy Director was fixed in the scale of Rs.3700 – 5000 and the report of the Anomaly Removal Committee was accepted by the Finance Department in terms of Resolution dated 08.02.1996. It is stated that though the report of the 4th Pay Revision Committee revising the scale of Development Officer in the scale of Rs.3000 4500 has been accepted by the appellants but the revision of pay scale suggested by the Anomaly Revision Committee, as accepted by the Finance Department was not implemented by the appellants whereafter the respondent / petitioner submitted his representation which was forwarded by the Secretary, RIADA with recommendation to the Industries Department by letter dated 07.02.1997. It is stated that the Board of Directors of appellant / respondent No.4, by Resolution bearing No.60A had resolved that the employees have to be paid the benefits, allowances and salary as per the revision applicable to the employees of the State Government as per the recommendation of 6th Pay Revision Committee, by resolving that the employees of the appellant should be paid the benefits of revision of pay scale as per the report of the 6th Pay Revision Committee and the same was accepted by the 60th meeting of the Board on 22.11.1999. Thus, in view of the Resolution, the respondent/ petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of the revised scale as per the 6th Pay Revision Committee from 01.01.1996 and monetary benefits to be paid from 01.04.1997. 3. The respondent/petitioner filed C.W.J.C No.341 of 2000 (R) for a direction upon the appellant/respondent to pay the due salary in terms of recommendation of the Anomaly Removal Committee, as adopted by the Finance Department. That the said writ was disposed off by order dated 03.04.2002 directing the petitioner to approach the Secretary Finance and the petitioner filed a representation dated 17.05.2002 before the Secretary Finance whereupon the Secretary Finance by Memo No. 5023 dated 05.08.2002 communicated a decision holding that the Board/ Corporation/ Authorities are autonomous bodies and the burden of meeting the demand of its employees is upon the appellant authority and it was the concern of RIADA as to how it manages the necessary funds. In view of the letter of the Secretary Finance, the respondent/ petitioner by letter dated 12.08.2002 requested the appellants for implementing the order of the Secretary Finance but the appellants sat over the matter without taking any decision. 4. Thus being aggrieved the aforesaid writ was filed whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application by the aforesaid impugned order holding that the respondent/ petitioner is entitled to difference of pay scale as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee's report w.e.f 01.03.1989 and the benefits of 6th Pay Revision Committee report w.e.f. 01.04.1997 and directed the appellant/ respondent to take necessary steps in the matter within 6 weeks. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant – respondent has submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that no prayer was made in the writ application with regard to implementation of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee or granting benefits to the writ petitioner with respect to the 6th Pay Revision. It is submitted that Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority (in short RIADA) is an autonomous body and the pay revision in respect of the Government employees is not ipso facto applicable to the employees of the RIADA; that the pay scale of the respondent – petitioner was fixed on the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee after approval by the State Government and his pay scale was fixed at Rs.3000 – 4500/-. It has been urged that the Hon’ble Judge failed to appreciate that granting relief to the writ petitioner to the benefits of 6th Pay Revision is made applicable in the case of RIADA, if it satisfies the Government that it has potential and ability to generate resources by its own commitment not by simply raising demands to the Government on the grounds that the Government is Owner/ Shareholder of this Body and these facts were not considered by the learned Single Judge. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent petitioner was holding the post of Development Officer and the post of Development Officer is not equivalent to the post of Deputy Director, Industries, because the post of Development Officer is under the Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority, which is an autonomous body, whereas the post of Deputy Director, Industries is under the Government and the contention of the respondent – petitioner that he was at all the time being paid the scale of Deputy Director, Industries is incorrect; that the Deputy Director, Industries was granted the pay scale of Rs.3700 – 5000/-on the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee of the 5th Pay Revision Committee because the Deputy Director, Industries had filed his objection before the Anomaly Removal Committee whereafter the Anomaly Removal Committee recommended the revision of pay of Deputy Director, Industries and the respondent – petitioner’s pay scale remained in the scale of Rs.3000 – 4500/-and not Rs.3700 – 5000/-; that the learned Single Judge should have considered the fact that the pay scale of the respondent – petitioner was revised according to the recommendations of the 5th Pay Revision Committee and implemented by the appellants after approval of the State Government whereafter, his pay scale was fixed at Rs.3000 – 4500/-and the learned Single Judge should have held that the respondent – petitioner is not entitled for enhancement of his pay scale on the basis of the report of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee which only recommended for enhancement of pay scale of Deputy Director, Industries from Rs.3000 – 4500/-to Rs.3700 – 5000/-and the recommendation was not made with respect to the pay scale of Development Officer; that the post of the Deputy Director, Industries is a gazetted post and the recruitment is made through Public Service Commission of the State whereas the post of Development Officer is not a gazetted post and the recruitment on the post of Development Officer is being made by the RIADA, an autonomous body of the Government of Jharkhand; that the nature of duty of the Deputy Director, Industries to that of Development Officer of RIADA is not similar and no way they can be said to be equivalent posts. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the respondent – petitioner did not choose to represent before the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee with respect to his pay scale accordingly, no direction was made regarding the revised pay scale of the respondent – petitioner and now respondent – petitioner wants to get his pay scale automatically advanced. Learned counsel has also submitted that as per Resolution dated 03.06.2003 of the RIADA, it was resolved the budget of the financial year 2003 -2004 of RIADA was approved and it was also resolved that since benefits of the approved pay of the Finance Department’s letter No.660 dated 08.02.1999 has not been given to the employees of the Authority, as such, a decision was taken that the employees will not claim the back wages till the decision is taken by the State Government and on their written assurance, it was resolved to make payment on the basis of revised pay scale from 01.04.2003 for the financial year 2003 – 2004. It is also submitted that since the matter is under consideration before the State Government and the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Authority cannot implement the pay scales without getting approval of the State Government. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent – petitioner has submitted that the appellants’ argument is contradictory to the submissions of the appellants made in paras – 3 and 4 of this appeal. Learned counsel has drawn our attention that on the one hand the appellant has stated that RIADA is a autonomous body and pay revision in respect of Government employees is not ipso facto applicable to its employees and the same is made applicable when the appellant satisfies the Government that its potential and ability to generate resources to meet its own commitment without simply raising demands to the Government on the ground that Government is the Owner/ Shareholder of this body and on the other hand the appellants have taken the plea that the matter is still pending before the Government for its approval and in the meantime appellant – RIADA have taken the decision to implement the recommendations of the 6th Pay Revision Committee from 01.04.2003, which creates doubt regarding bonafide of the appellants. Learned counsel has relied on the decisions in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Learned counsel has relied on the decisions in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) JCR 243 (Jhr); State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vrs. Shiv Kumar Singh & Anr reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 641 and submitted that in the later decision, S.L.P was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being S.L.P No.2029 of 2007, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 002.11.2007; that in the aforesaid decisions it has been held that the statutory body like Municipal Corporation, the State Pollution Control Board etc., the Government’s interference is not required and the decision of the Board shall be given effect to. Learned counsel has also relied on the decisions reported in 2007 (2) SCC 491 in the case of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Ranjot Singh & Ors and reported in 2006 (1) SCC 479 in the case of U.P State Brassware Corporation Ltd & Anr. Vrs. Uday Narayan Pandey to substantiate his arguments that the RIADA is a Statutory Body and it is competent to take its own decision independently without Government’s approval. 8. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Annexure – A to the counter affidavit and submitted that in the 60th Meeting of the Board, it was resolved that employees/ officers of Authority shall also be extended the benefits of pay revision at par with the employees and officers of the State Government. It is submitted that the aforesaid Resolution was not over ruled in the 67th Meeting neither any reference was made that the Resolution of 60th meeting has been recalled. Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure – B in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents which is a letter addressed to the joint Secretary, Department of Industries by the Secretary, Department of Industries seeking information regarding anomaly in the pay scale of the respondent – petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent/ petitioner has submitted and reiterated the facts as averred in the writ – petition that the respondent/ petitioner's post of Development Officer was all along being treated as equal to the post of Deputy Director in the Industries Department for the purposes of fixation of salary as per the recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee. That in view of the 5th Pay Revision Committee recommendation, the Board of Directors of the appellant, in its 60th Board meeting, adopted a Resolution to implement the recommendations of 5th Pay Revision Committee report with respect to its employees and accordingly the respondent / petitioner was paid the scale of Rs.3000 – 4500 which was the pay scale recommended for Deputy Director Industries Department and other equivalent posts. That the pay Anomaly Removal Committee recommended the revision of pay scale of Deputy Director and other equivalent posts to Rs.3500 – 5000 but the recommendation of Pay Anomaly Committee was not implemented and the case of respondent / petitioner, despite the fact that he was always treated as equivalent to Deputy Director, Industries Department, for grant of benefit of pay scale. Thereafter the respondent/ petitioner submitted his representation before the appellants who recommended the case to the Secretary Industries Department by Memo No.304 dated 07.02.1997. That despite the letter of Secretary Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent/ petitioner on their own end, as RIADA was an autonomous body, and had to meet its financial obligation on its own and in case of difficulty RIADA can approach its parent Department. Despite the Resolution of the Board of Directors, to implement the recommendations of 6th Pay Revision Committee w.e.f 01.01.1996 and pay the monetary benefits w.e.f 01.04.1997, it was not implemented in favour of the petitioner, although the respondent/ petitioner was in service during the said period and retired on 28.02.2001. That the 60th Board meeting Resolution was not considered and by the 67th Board meeting Resolution was taken to implement the 6th Pay Revision Committee report on ad-hoc basis from 01.04.2003 and there was no justification as to how the Managing Director can unilaterally take a decision contrary to the decision of the Board of Directors and what was the rationality in choosing the date as 01.04.2003 and the argument of the appellant that the recommendations of Pay Revision of salary can only be implemented after the approval of the State Government is rather contradictory and fit to be discarded. 10. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsels, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Act, 1974. 10. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsels, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Act, 1974. Section 5 of the Act deals with the Authority's power to frame regulations but with the prior approval of the State Government, Section 7 is regarding the financial powers of the Authority. Clause (d) of Section 7 mandates due approval by the State Government, Section 8 provides for preparation of budget in each financial year showing the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Authority and the same should be forwarded to the State Government and the State Government may issue any directive. Rule 7 of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Rules, 1981 prescribes for submission of report to the State Government. Rule 7 (iii) & (iv) reads as under :- “7 (iii) Any expenditure, which is not provided for in the budget or which is against any direction of the Bihar Government issued under Sub-Section(1) of Section 8 of the Act, will not be incurred except with the prior approval of the State Government”. 7 (iv) The budget submitted by the Authority may be modified by the State Government by giving necessary directions under the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act.” In view of the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Area development Authority Act, 1974 read with the Bihar Industrial Area development Authority Rules, 1981 as enumerated above, it is apparent that the State Government's control other the Industrial Area Development Authority in the matter of financial transaction as well as the schemes to be implemented and the development plans of the industrial area, is all pervasive. It is not disputed by the respondent-petitioner that he had filed his representation before the Secretary, RIADA to fix the pay of the respondent-petitioner in the scale of Rs. 3700-5000/-, as fixed for the Deputy Director, Industries and the Secretary, RIADA had forwarded the representation to the Industries Department by letter dated 07.02.1997. 11. It is not disputed by the respondent-petitioner that he had filed his representation before the Secretary, RIADA to fix the pay of the respondent-petitioner in the scale of Rs. 3700-5000/-, as fixed for the Deputy Director, Industries and the Secretary, RIADA had forwarded the representation to the Industries Department by letter dated 07.02.1997. 11. The respondent-petitioner as noticed has submitted that Board of Directors by Resolution bearing No. 60A had resolved that the employees have to be paid benefits, allowances and salary as per the pay revision applicable to the employees of the State Government in terms of the recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Committee and by the said Resolution, employees should be paid benefits of revised pay scale and the same was approved by the 60th Board meeting dated 22.11.1999 and the petitioner was entitled to get the monetary benefit from 01.04.1997, as per the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee and there is no plausible explanation as to why without referring to the Resolution of the 60th meeting the appellants by 67th Board meeting dated 03.06.2003 decided to implement and pay the salary in terms of Finance Department's Memo No. 660 dated 08.02.1996 from 01.04.2003. 12. On perusal of the Resolution of 67th meeting dated 03.06.2003 at serial No. 14 it is apparent that the budget of the RIADA for the year 2003-2004 was accepted and in course of discussion of the budget it was decided that the employees of the Authority have not been granted benefits till now in terms of the letter No. 660 dated 08.02.1999 of Finance Department and on discussions, it was decided that till the decision is not taken by the State Government, on the written assurance of the employees that they shall not claim the arrears till the decision is taken by the Government, it was recommended to make payment from 01.04.2003 on the revised scale in terms of Memo No. 660 dated 08.02.1999 of the Finance Department. This Resolution demonstrate that the Resolution of the 60th meeting whereby it was resolved to give benefits of the 5th Pay Revision to the employees w.e.f. 01.04.1997, was pending before the Government and the Resolution for making payments in terms of the Memo No. 660 dated 08.02.1999 of Finance Department was taken for payment from 01.04.2003 for the financial year 2003 – 2004 13. It is noticed from the provisions of the Act and Rules that the budget is to be sent to the State Government for approval. The respondent-petitioner has not brought on record any instance where any employee was given benefits in terms of the Resolution of 60th meeting to show that he has been discriminated. The provisions of the Act and Rules contemplates that the funds are to be generated by the Authority and funds are also allocated by the State Government and the State Government is the Authority which approves the budgetary and other financial expenditures and it was due to this that the 60th Board meeting's Resolution was sent to the Government for approval and the same was pending with the Government whereafter the budgetary provisions were made for the financial year 2003-2004 in the Resolution of the 67th meeting and the same was to be placed for the approval of the Government in terms of the Act and Rules. 14. Having noticed that the State Government is the controlling Authority and the financial matters have to be approved by the State Government accordingly the decisions cited by the learned counsel is not applicable as no Rules and Regulations have been brought to our notice to show that RIADA has been making payments on the basis of its Resolution. On the contrary the 60th Board Meeting Resolution which granted monetary benefits from 01.04.1997 has not been implemented which is clear from the 67th Board Meeting Resolution and the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner is answered accordingly. The respondent-petitioner has not produced any document to show that the post of Development Officer in RIADA and the Deputy Director in the Industries Department is equivalent post. The respondent-petitioner has admitted that he was appointed as Development Officer in 1979 in terms of the advertisement issued by the RIADA. The appellant has categorically stated that the Deputy Director, Industries is recruited through Public Service Commission. It is evident that the procedure for recruitment on these two posts are entirely different and in the absence of any Resolution, Rules or Provisions of Act that the Development Officer is holding equivalent post to the Deputy Director the contention of the respondent-petitioner cannot be accepted. 15. It is evident that the procedure for recruitment on these two posts are entirely different and in the absence of any Resolution, Rules or Provisions of Act that the Development Officer is holding equivalent post to the Deputy Director the contention of the respondent-petitioner cannot be accepted. 15. It is also to be pointed out that the respondent – petitioner had not filed any objection or protest with the Pay Anomaly Removal committee for revising his pay as was done by the Deputy Director, Industries. From the discussions made above, it is evident that the representation of the petitioner for revising his pay scale to the scale of Deputy Director, Industries as suggested by the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee, has been sent to the Industries Department by the Secretary, RIADA and the monetary benefits to be granted from 01.04.1997 in terms of Resolution of the 60th Board meeting has also been sent to the Government. Admittedly the State Government is the approving Authority for taking a decision with respect to the pay scale of the employees and Pay Revision and salary and the matter is pending with the State Government and not with the Authority. In the given facts and circumstances the impugned order 12.09.2007 passed by the writ court is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. 16. The State Government i.e. Secretary Department of Industries, Govt. of Jharkhand and Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand is directed to take necessary decision in accordance with law and the relevant rules with respect to the representation of the respondent-petitioner, sent by the Secretary RIADA by letter dated 07.02.1997, and the Resolution of the 60th Board meeting sent by the Authority, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. With the said direction the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed in part.